The Psychological Reasons Maybe

[Keep The Reason]

1.) Reason <-- Demonstrable utilizing human brains. You don't get this one.

and logic both exist and are valid. <-- this is logic, which I admit we accept sans demonstration. No credit for this one.

2.) The law of identity is valid, a=b and b=c therefore a=c. <-- This is the laws of logic, which I admit we accept sans demonstration (you're repeating the same one over and over) No credit for this one.

3.) The law of non-contradiction is valid. <-- Same. We already say "The Laws of Logic are universal claims we simply accept as in place." No credit for this one

4.) 1 + 1 = 2 <-- Demonstrable. If I take 1 item, and then take another item, I have 2 items. So you don't get this one.

5.) Mathematics is self consistent. <-- Using the Laws of Logic, yes. Otherwise, we can consistently demonstrate that mathematics is self consistent; Every time I take 1 item and add to it another item, I have 2 items. No credit here.

6.) Morality is objective (I probably shouldn't throw that one in there because I know it will be heavily disputed, but what the heck, it's my list right?).<-- Flat out disagree. Morality is defined by human involvement, hence purely subjective, demonstrably so. Find me a morality outside of human subjectivity, and we can talk about it.

7.) For a knowledge claim to be valid it must be demonstrable.<-- Demonstrable so with ONE exception -- you are merely citing the same one over and over. No credit here.

You are unable to cite any other example of a knowledge claim that exists without demonstration with the exception of repeating the one already conceded, i.e., the laws of logic.

[Aaron]

which Aaron has confused with the law of identity

ooops... well at least I gave a full disclosure: amateur. Thanks for the correction though.

[Aaron]

1.) Reason <-- Demonstrable utilizing human brains. You don't get this one.

and logic both exist and are valid. <-- this is logic, which I admit we accept sans demonstration. No credit for this one.

2.) The law of identity is valid, a=b and b=c therefore a=c. <-- This is the laws of logic, which I admit we accept sans demonstration (you're repeating the same one over and over) No credit for this one.

3.) The law of non-contradiction is valid. <-- Same. We already say "The Laws of Logic are universal claims we simply accept as in place." No credit for this one

4.) 1 + 1 = 2 <-- Demonstrable. If I take 1 item, and then take another item, I have 2 items. So you don't get this one.

5.) Mathematics is self consistent. <-- Using the Laws of Logic, yes. Otherwise, we can consistently demonstrate that mathematics is self consistent; Every time I take 1 item and add to it another item, I have 2 items. No credit here.

6.) Morality is objective (I probably shouldn't throw that one in there because I know it will be heavily disputed, but what the heck, it's my list right?).<-- Flat out disagree. Morality is defined by human involvement, hence purely subjective, demonstrably so. Find me a morality outside of human subjectivity, and we can talk about it.

7.) For a knowledge claim to be valid it must be demonstrable.<-- Demonstrable so with ONE exception -- you are merely citing the same one over and over. No credit here.

You are unable to cite any other example of a knowledge claim that exists without demonstration with the exception of repeating the one already conceded, i.e., the laws of logic.

Ever graded a test? I bet you made at least someone cry, lol. Anyways I don't feel like I've been fairly evaluated, but I want to think about it a little more.

[Moonwood the Hare]

1.) Reason <-- Demonstrable utilizing human brains. You don't get this one.

and logic both exist and are valid. <-- this is logic, which I admit we accept sans demonstration. No credit for this one.

2.) The law of identity is valid, a=b and b=c therefore a=c. <-- This is the laws of logic, which I admit we accept sans demonstration (you're repeating the same one over and over) No credit for this one.

3.) The law of non-contradiction is valid. <-- Same. We already say "The Laws of Logic are universal claims we simply accept as in place." No credit for this one

Why must we accept all laws of logic as valid. Most people in daily life routinely disregard the laws of inference; they are clearly not indispensable. As I said Brouwer held excluded middle to be dispensable for some purposes. And the axiom of equals is not the same as the law of identity but if we are accepting it it takes us well beyond the basic laws formulated by Aristotle.

4.) 1 + 1 = 2 <-- Demonstrable. If I take 1 item etc.

That is not demonstrating that 1 + 1 = 2 it is demonstrating that it worked on that occasion. You are up against the problem of inferring a universal conclusion from a finite number of observations; the problem of induction in short. Also do you know that 1 million + 1 million = 2 million. No one has ever performed this operation with objects. What about a googolplex + a googolplex - there are not even that many quarks in the cosmos.

5.) Mathematics is self consistent. <-- Using the Laws of Logic, yes. Otherwise, we can consistently demonstrate that mathematics is self consistent; Every time I take 1 item and add to it another item, I have 2 items. No credit here.

Yes, he should have said that you cannot demonstrate that the whole of arithmetic is self consistent. Not sure if we do intuit that as self evident though.

7.) For a knowledge claim to be valid it must be demonstrable.<-- Demonstrable so with ONE exception -- you are merely citing the same one over and over. No credit here.

As I keep saying the claim itself is not demonstrable - so that gives 2 things to start with. You have also conceded that incorrigible self evident beliefs like I remember eating a sandwich last week are non-demonstrable and valid. So that's 3 kinds of claims you personally accept as self evident and non-demonstrable.

You are unable to cite any other example of a knowledge claim that exists without demonstration with the exception of repeating the one already conceded, i.e., the laws of logic.

I think we can now agree that the following claims can be held as true without being demonstrable.
1. Incorrigible self evident beliefs such as I am seeing green now or I have a headache or I have a memory of what happened a week ago.
2. The laws of logic including at least the first two and maybe the third principle of Aristotelian logic. The axiom of equals (this is really arithmetical but it can be seen in purely logical terms). The laws of inference such as 'if A then B and A, then B.'
We are still disputing whether some mathematical claims can be added to this growing list.

[Aaron]

What shall we say? Moonwood strikes again.

[Keep The Reason]

What shall we say? Moonwood strikes again.

Actually, it's just really absurd. If I wanted to take a million objects and add another million object to it, we all know I would have demonstrated that 1 million plus 1 million = 2 million. The idea that it's "in that instance" and we'd need to prove it over and over in every future instance is... funny.

It seems to me that Moonwood's world is only viable if all claims are always tested. At this point, it's clear that there's no way to bridge this gap between us. I will bet you he NEVER functions to this degree in his empirical day to day life. No one functions in this manner. No bank is going to let you just get away with claiming you added a second million to your first million without counting it. I've gotten to the point with you where it's just a dead horse. If I knew you both in real life, I would consider you both to be eminently scam-worthy rubes if I thought for a minute you would actually adopt any of these issues in your day to day lives.

We all know you don't-- except, of course, when it comes to believing in Jesus. then, all of this comes into play and you get to have your belief system. good for you.

Now-- I have a beautiful bridge to sell you both a share in, and it resides across the East river in Brooklyn. I'm selling it for a song. Send me $30,000 USD each, and it's yours. Cash only please. No need to demonstrate that I can or cannot sell it to you-- it might not be true in one instance, but until you test all instances, you have no reason not to agree to this once-in-a-lifetime deal.

[Moonwood the Hare]

What shall we say? Moonwood strikes again.

Actually, it's just really absurd. If I wanted to take a million objects and add another million object to it, we all know I would have demonstrated that 1 million plus 1 million = 2 million. The idea that it's "in that instance" and we'd need to prove it over and over in every future instance is... funny.

Agreed it would be. You know what would happen even though you have not done it. Therefore you do not know by demonstration. Therefore not all valid knowledge is demonstrated and this applies to maths as well as logic.

It seems to me that Moonwood's world is only viable if all claims are always tested.

No. I am not the one who claimed that to be known something must be demonstrated. You did.

At this point, it's clear that there's no way to bridge this gap between us. I will bet you he NEVER functions to this degree in his empirical day to day life. No one functions in this manner.

My point exactly

No bank is going to let you just get away with claiming you added a second million to your first million without counting it. I've gotten to the point with you where it's just a dead horse. If I knew you both in real life, I would consider you both to be eminently scam-worthy rubes if I thought for a minute you would actually adopt any of these issues in your day to day lives.

In our daily lives we go about knowing things. All of us. Some things we need demonstrating some we do not. And we have a good idea how to judge which is which. But as soon as you introduce this idea of demonstrating everything it becomes impractical. At this point some empiricists have tried to retreat to the idea of things being demonstrable in principle rather than in fact. So for example if you take the example I gave above of adding a googolplex to a googolplex they will say this could be done in principle if we had a bigger universe and much vaster lifespans but suppose someone did perform this experiment and counted all these things out and the answer came to something other than two googolplexes we would just assume we had made a mistake in our calculations. Our intuition is so certain the experiment if we could perform it would be pointless. It is also possible using class theory to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 yet Russell and Whitehead who constructed the proof will say no more than that it is occasionally useful. It does not make the sum any more certain because the proof is less convincing than the original intuition. When I see one raindrop join another on a window I see 1+1 making 1 and yet this does not cause me to doubt for a moment that 1+1 = 2 and I trust my intuition more than my senses.

We all know you don't-- except, of course, when it comes to believing in Jesus. then, all of this comes into play and you get to have your belief system. good for you.

Now-- I have a beautiful bridge to sell you both a share in, and it resides across the East river in Brooklyn. I'm selling it for a song. Send me $30,000 USD each, and it's yours. Cash only please. No need to demonstrate that I can or cannot sell it to you-- it might not be true in one instance, but until you test all instances, you have no reason not to agree to this once-in-a-lifetime deal.

You still don't get it. Here is what troubles me. A Christian knows that what they believe is true because they have experienced God as a reality in their life. Say a simple Christian like my old friend Maggie who grew up on a farm in Yorkshire and along comes Mr. Reasonist Bully Boy. You have no valid grounds for belief he says because what you believe cannot be demonstrated. Now as she is wise Maggie will know Mr Reasonist is pulling an intelectual scam but if she were not as shrewd as she is she will begin to think she has no valid grounds for her belief and either abandon it or start to make up spurious reasons why she supposedly believes (we call this apologetics). So I want to go to Mr. Reasonist and point out that he has simply not thought this through. He may have done a little more reading and thinking than Maggie but only a little and here Pope's dictum about a little learning being a dangerous thing comes into play.

So although you now pretend to think I have said demonstration of a claim is never neccessary you know that is not what I have said. I have said not all valid claims are known by demonstration. I think I have demonstarted that to be the case.

[Keep The Reason]

Agreed it would be. You know what would happen even though you have not done it. Therefore you do not know by demonstration. Therefore not all valid knowledge is demonstrated and this applies to maths as well as logic.

You keep not getting it. The mechanism for demonstration is ALWAYS THERE. Why won't you get that? You are fixated on some weird little aspect, that I cannot in the future test a premise until it happens, and therefore I cannot claim I know it will work until it does, or that I am claiming it does so that's purely assumptive. No, it isn't purely assmptive as I have consistent empirical evidence that I can apply demonstratin to a claim to validate its truth.

Well, all that argument does is make me shrug and say, "Wrong and absurd. Knowledge is known as true by demonstration. Be patient while we engage that process and I will show you why 1+1=2 and not 25."

A Christian knows that what they believe is true because they have experienced God as a reality in their life.

Demonstrate how this claim is true. In return, I will demonstrate that I am not the owner of the Brooklyn Bridge.

"Reasonist Bully Boy"?

I expect that kind of shit from Mitchell. It's discouraging when you join the ranks of his ilk. How disappointing.

[StillSearching]

If the shoe fits...

[Aaron]

You keep not getting it. The mechanism for demonstration is ALWAYS THERE.

Yeah but this goes right back to that post I made on how we know we are applying the right demonstration to the right situation. Moonwood's window water droplets are a brilliant example of this. For you could say something like this:

Wrong and absurd. Knowledge is known as true by demonstration. Be patient while we engage that process and I will show you why 1+1=2 and not 25."

And then you take the two water droplets and then proceed onward to show that 1 water droplet plus 1 water droplet equals 1 water droplet???? Uhh hang on a second, my demonstration wasn't ready yet.... and then you'd quickly turn your back and think, "How can I make this demonstration show what I know to be the case...?". After a few picoseconds (for that is all it takes the brilliant Mr. K. T. R. to think up a solution) he says, "Ahem... observe while I show that when we take 1 unit volume of a water droplet and combine it with another unit volume of water droplet we get two unit volumes of water droplets". And then he sits back with a smug smile (maybe like a Frank Burns gloat on the tv show M.A.S.H.) and thinks to himself, "Ah its so good to be clever enough to think up demonstrations applicable for every situation".



But the way I see it that's not really whats going on here. The way I see it Moonwood is spot on. We are so sure of what we know to be intuitively true that when life appears to conflict with that kind of truth we step back and say, "Now hand on a minute, I must have done something wrong because that just can't be right". And that's how I see my Christian faith. I know that God is real and that he has forgiven me and that he loves me, I have experienced his promises of redemption and salvation, and I have put my faith in them. God has demonstrated his love to me in a way that is more real than anything else I've found.

And then KTR comes along and says, "Demonstration, demonstration, everything needs demonstration. If I can't demonstrate it its wrong and absurd.". And I think, there he goes trying to show 1 + 1 is 2 by using water droplets and he can't figure out why its not working. We must come to God on God's terms and in the way he has prescribed. If we do we will find that nothing else in life we can be as sure of as we can be of Him and his promises of love and forgiveness and redemption. There is a demonstration of love and acceptance and forgiveness in Christ in the heart of a human that outshines any demonstration anywhere else and of that I am sure. But we must be willing to meet God on his terms. We aren't clever enough to figure out this demonstration on our own. We need God to show us the way.

[humanguy]

We must come to God on God's terms and in the way he has prescribed.

What way is it that God has prescribed?

[Aaron]

We must come to God on God's terms and in the way he has prescribed.

What way is that, again?

Oh I thought you'd never ask!!!! I'm a Christian so I believe in the God of the Bible so that's where I go as the authoritative source for my information on questions like this. According to the Bible we were meant to be with God. We are designed that way, we cannot be who we really were meant to be until we are reconciled with God as our Lord, King and friend. That I believe is just a fact. And it is also my belief that this fact becomes painfully clear the more successful we become in life. It is my view that the more pleasure we are able to experience the more miserable we become, that is if we are trying to make those pleasures fill the desires we find within ourselves. There is plentiful evidence of this phenomenon available in our world. To add to our desperate situation we are prideful and arrogant. We won't admit we need help and instead continue on on our miserable way even spreading our misery to those around us. The very thing we so desperately need is the very thing we want to avoid admitting that we need, that is Jesus. Thankfully Jesus is able to reach us still, even when we appear to be most unreachable, and because of his atoning sacrifice he has covered our sin and our pride and our arrogance and enables us to shed that suffocating life and to find a new life in Him, a fulfilled life, the life that we were designed to have. The life that we so desperately were after, but could never attain.

So essentially the way he has prescribed is for us to come to Him through Christ, to trust that we are reconciled to God because of the sacrifice of Jesus and to believe that because of Him we are saved from ourselves and from the impending wrath of God.

[Keep The Reason]

You keep not getting it. The mechanism for demonstration is ALWAYS THERE.

Yeah but this goes right back to that post I made on how we know we are applying the right demonstration to the right situation. Moonwood's window water droplets are a brilliant example of this. For you could say something like this:

Wrong and absurd. Knowledge is known as true by demonstration. Be patient while we engage that process and I will show you why 1+1=2 and not 25."

And then you take the two water droplets and then proceed onward to show that 1 water droplet plus 1 water droplet equals 1 water droplet???? Uhh hang on a second, my demonstration wasn't ready yet.... and then you'd quickly turn your back and think, "How can I make this demonstration show what I know to be the case...?". After a few picoseconds (for that is all it takes the brilliant Mr. K. T. R. to think up a solution) he says, "Ahem... observe while I show that when we take 1 unit volume of a water droplet and combine it with another unit volume of water droplet we get two unit volumes of water droplets". And then he sits back with a smug smile (maybe like a Frank Burns gloat on the tv show M.A.S.H.) and thinks to himself, "Ah its so good to be clever enough to think up demonstrations applicable for every situation".



But the way I see it that's not really whats going on here. The way I see it Moonwood is spot on. We are so sure of what we know to be intuitively true that when life appears to conflict with that kind of truth we step back and say, "Now hand on a minute, I must have done something wrong because that just can't be right". And that's how I see my Christian faith. I know that God is real and that he has forgiven me and that he loves me, I have experienced his promises of redemption and salvation, and I have put my faith in them. God has demonstrated his love to me in a way that is more real than anything else I've found.

And then KTR comes along and says, "Demonstration, demonstration, everything needs demonstration. If I can't demonstrate it its wrong and absurd.". And I think, there he goes trying to show 1 + 1 is 2 by using water droplets and he can't figure out why its not working. We must come to God on God's terms and in the way he has prescribed. If we do we will find that nothing else in life we can be as sure of as we can be of Him and his promises of love and forgiveness and redemption. There is a demonstration of love and acceptance and forgiveness in Christ in the heart of a human that outshines any demonstration anywhere else and of that I am sure. But we must be willing to meet God on his terms. We aren't clever enough to figure out this demonstration on our own. We need God to show us the way.

Because the water droplet still adheres adhere to the law of logic that the identity is the same thing at the same time at the same place. There are physics applied to liquids, and the reality is, "two" IS easily discerned in the water droplet if you are speaking of VOLUMES and MASS. 1 water droplet of X mass will INCREASE if another water droplet of X mass is added to it. While they will be one droplet in number it will be larger in volume and mass.

How do we KNOW this? How do we discern this?

We demonstrate it (there's that pesky issue once again!)

And I'll thank you to stop with the strawman--

I didn't ever say "If I can't demonstrate it it is wrong and absurd". I said Moonwood's application of philosophical theory is wrong and absurd in an actual functional relaity. No one actually functions in the way he ius stating, which is merely esoteric cogitation of philsophical speculation. Even the speculation fails in the other direction because it relies on the laws of identity to use words, sentences, and communiucate itself-- it defaults to adopting the laws that it claims exist without validation.

That is why I said this is a game, nothing more.

In reality valid knowledge claims-- in order to be assessed by humans -- need to be demonstrated. Your god claims may or may not be true-- I never said they were by default wrong and absurd (well some of them are absurd, but let's let that go for now). What I do say is that the assertion that "I have a god experience therefore he exists" cannot be demonstrated, hence has no validity for anyone being told the assertion-- it does not default into a valid knowledge claim.

I've said this over and over and over-- and it does not penetrate the wall of loophole-ism you want to adopt.

And in the end, it remains rock solid true: You cannot demonstrate the authority of the bible. You can not demostrate the validity of the existence of god, you cannot validate the ressurection, sin, heaven of hell.

On the other hand, I adopt only one assumptive claim (that reality exists/laws of logic).

Back to square one.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I feel there is an awful lot I have said that has simply been ignored. Aaron and I think on the same lines a lot of the time so naturally he has picked up what I am saying. This is not simply because he is a fellow Christian as Christians are divided on these matters as on so many others. I do find it frustrating that we find it so hard to understand each other and maybe it does as humanguy suggested go back to psychological reasons. I do acknowledge that people in practice do not function in this highly speculative way, none the less if we want to look to the basis of knowledge claims then we do need to look to the roots and not the plant. I do not have the same strong disagreement with a genuine pragmatist like Gary as I do with you KTR. It seems to me that you are a pragmatist only at the point where it suits your argument to be one; you condemn critical analysis precisely at the point when it challenges your core belief in the need for demonstration. The question of how people actually function is quite a complex one and it may be that it differs from person to person. The idea that arithmetical truths are inducted from the empirical may be true for some people; it is not a completely untenable theory and it was held by John Stuart Mill an atheist thinker for whom I have the greatest respect. But when I look at the actual functioning of human beings and the way they formulate knowledge claims it does seem to me that my account far from being esoteric is more faithful than yours to that experience. Aaron can see what I mean because it chimes in with his experience. I do not believe that religious claims are sui generis as ways of knowing but if they were, if they were completely unlike every other kind of knowledge claim I do not see that would in itself be a reason to dismiss the claims. There are other types of knowing that are sui generis such as incorrigible self evident knowledge and we do not reject them for that reason.

By the way you asked for alternatives to accepting the laws of logic and I gave you over half a dozen all of which you ignored. Was the point of asking just an attempt to prove I could not do it or did you genuinely want to discus the matter?

[Keep The Reason]

I didn't ignore them, I have just not gotten to them yet. Let's deal with it now, though it really won't change anything:

I consider "the Laws of Logic" (plural) to be one set of rules we need to accept as in place to establish reality is real.

Let's cover the others:

You have also conceded that incorrigible self evident beliefs like I remember eating a sandwich last week are non-demonstrable and valid. So that's 3 kinds of claims you personally accept as self evident and non-demonstrable.

It is not a knowledge claim as far as I can tell. I can take your word for it, and I can assume it's of such a mundane nature as there'd be little reason for you to lie, but do I know -- for a fact -- that you ate a sandwich last week?

No.

Now-- YOU know it-- because it was demonstrated to your in a real physical way, and the same could be said for anyone else who happened to witness you eating it -- but for anyone who did NOT actually witness you eating it, we simply take it on faith that it's true. But it is NOT a knowledge claim to anyone who did not see you eat it.

Incorrigible self evident beliefs such as I am seeing green now

Colors have temperature and light wavelenghts; they are demonstrable. If you and I are looking at a rainbow and we point to the lowest color band and say, "That's violet", then we are dmeonstrating that the color exists and we both see it.

I have a headache

There are tests to indicate that your head might be hurting. Otherwise, I would have to take it on faith that you are actually feeling any pain. It's not a known truth that you are from my perspective. From your own, the physical sensation of the "ache" stands as demonstration that you have a headache.

I have a memory of what happened a week ago

Memory has often been tested and been shown to be reliable, faulty, and utterly imagined. If you and I watch a film of two cars crashing and after it's done I say to you, "How many cars have crashed" and you say "Two" then you've demonstrated that your memory has coincided with what the film has shared. If a memory is not demonstrably corroborated, then it's very possible that it is not valid knowledge.